Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Commonwealth realm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Commonwealth realms listed at Monarchies of Europe

Commonwealth realms are being listed at the article Monarchies in Europe. I tried to remove the content but to no avail. Interested users may like to take part in the discussion on the talk page. --Cameron * 16:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Female succession and future split of lines of succession between realms

I seem to recall that the UK recently proposed that females should have equal right of succession to males (Guardian article). If this happens in the UK, and similar laws are not passed in the other realms, and William has a daughter as his first child, am I right in thinking that there will be a different monarch in the other realms compared to the UK? If so, we need to mention this in the article. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm i remember reading about that in the news recently aswell. Im sure if that did happen then the other Commonwealth realms would follow suit sometime in the future. I doubt if any of the other countries would do anything until after the Queen dies though, because im sure Canada / Australia will hold referendums on becoming republics and probably win it after the Queen does die. I agree with the equal rights for male / females, the bit i dont understand is allowing a catholic to become monarch. How an earth could a catholic become the head of the Church of England. If the UK act is passed then it would be worth a mention on this page about the legal implications for the other commonwealth realms. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Under current rules, the monarch could be anything he liked - Atheist, Satanist, or whatever - except a Catholic. As to which of those would make a better head of the Church of England, I'll reserve judgement. And as for making the succession non-sexist, though it keeps popping up from time to time, in reality the British government are hardly ever likely to propose such a thing, precisely because the other realms would have to follow suit (or be lumbered with a live-in monarch they don't want), and they'd be just as likely to go the whole way and declare a republic, thus diminishing British influence in the world. ðarkun coll 16:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Not unless the (1701) Act of Settlement has been repealed:- "That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established;" Not only can they not be Catholic (or atheist, satanist or whatever), they can't be Presbyterian, Methodist or other reformed. They must join the Anglican church, with all rules for membership which that entails. Odd, granted, since the Established Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, and she's head of it too...

Incidentally, there is an error in the text, which probably should be corrected. "as no realm other than the UK has an established church" - the UK does not have an established church. It has either none or two, depending on how you look at it. ENGLAND has the Church of England as its established church, and Scotland has the Church of Scotland. Northern Ireland and Wales don't have established churches, either individually or as part of the United Kingdom. I don't have time to find references, so will not edit, but would heartily recommend that someone do so.

I think Canada would remain a monarchy...Australia probably wouldn't be so lucky. Extending the religious exclusion to all non-Anglican religions would probably be the best solution to the problem. Equal succession is probably the way forward though. --Cameron * 16:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite likely, equal-gender succession will come about, if the UK public raises enough of a stink about it. As for a Catholic monarch? Charles wants to be Head of the faiths. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is a rumour. I can't valid sources. On his website he denies wanting a multifaith coronation. --Cameron * 17:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In an high-profile interview Prince Charles did with David Dimbleby a few years ago, he said he wanted to be "Defender of Faith", rather than "Defender of the Faith". This was also the occasion when Dimbleby said to him, "You're going to be King of England", and Charles responded by saying, "And Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland." He did not, however, mention Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. ðarkun coll 13:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

- That was not an error of omission by Charles. Some people constantly mention "England" forgetting that the United Kingdom is the realm, not England, and yhe realm includes Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Charles was being inclusive and germane, by correcting Dimbleby and including the other countries in that realm.Gary Joseph (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tharky! I rather think he would like to be divested of the 'colonies'. Strikes me as somewhat republican for a future head of state(will be an interesting reign- considering that he's said he wants to be a mover and a shaker).--Gazzster (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If he ever gets to be king. The Queen Mother lived to be over a hundred. ðarkun coll 15:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

According to taped conversation between Charles & Camilla, in the early 1990's; I believe Charles wished to be something else. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sovereignity

The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy,[6] the succession, and the Queen herself. ... The United Kingdom no longer holds any legislative power over any country besides itself ...

How can Canada be sovereign, when the Queen effectively can veto a no-confidence vote against the prime minister? Canadian Parliament suspended until late January --AndersFeder (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If she could (I honestly don't know the extent of her constitutional powers in Canada) she would do so as Queen of Canada, not as Queen of the UK.And even so, she would be bound to accept Mr Harper's advice except where that would be clearly impossible.--Gazzster (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Article states it isn't really a "British institution" but...

It currently states: "The monarchy is therefore no longer an exclusively British institution, although it may often be called British for historical reasons, for convenience, or for political purposes." but isn't it British solely? For the simple fact that if Britain decided tomorrow to abolish the Monarchy it would be highly unlikely that any of the other Realms would still retain having HM Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state for much longer. For example does anyone think it would be likely that if Britain switched to a republic that Australia would move the entire Royal family to Australia to continue their institution of the Monarchy? If Britain removed the Monarchy it would be likely that the rest of the realms would make provisions to also remove it. However any other realm leaving this arangement would have little to no bearing on the the others. Britain holds the key for all the rest of the realms IMHO. CaribDigita (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You have conveniently summed up your paragraph in a single, final letter: 'O' for opinion. Please provide evidence that practicalities would make such a situation infeasible. Constitutionally, it is certainly no longer a British institution.

On a side note, were the United Kingdom to abolish the monarchy, Canada could well continue with the monarchy. It has sufficient residences (particularly Rideau Hall), and the monarchy is a very important cultural symbol of identity when compared to the Big Bad Wolf below the 49th parallel. Such a situation would lead to the monarchy being far less Canadocentric (I'm sure that's not a word: nothing revolves around Canada) than it is currently Anglocentric. The first paragraph is fact; the second paragraph is IMHO. Bastin 07:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. The Constitution of Australia refers to "Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors". If Britain became a republic, then the President of Britain would be her legal successor, and would exercise the role of the Queen of Australia. Australia would still be de jure a monarchy, but one with a monarch elected by the people of Britain. I agree though that such a move would light a fire under the republican movement in Australia, but any change would still require a referendum. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You are, of course, incorrect entirely: basing, as you are, your argument on the world before 1926. Were the monarchy abolished tomorrow in the UK, the monarch of Australia would still be Elizabeth II. Victoria's heir and successor in Australia (which is to what the Constitution refers) is Elizabeth II. The Balfour Declaration of 1926 makes it plainly clear that the titles of Queen of Australia and Queen of the United Kingdom are separate and equal. Bastin 17:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I am basing my argument on the world as of this week. The UK parliament is currently considering the ''Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown'' (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill (2009) http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2009/rp09-024.pdf which amends the Act of Succession (1700) and repeals the Royal Marriages Act (1772) in order to remove religious and sexual discrimination from the order of succession. The background paper states that the Statute of Westminster "does not appear to require assent to be sought from other Commonwealth nations, just for them to have been consulted." Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

About the Monarch question. To my mind I think this could cause a mini constitutional crisis. Within some realms the orders of independence states there "shall be an office of the Governor-General". However if the Monarch is residing locally in a realm the Head of State's authority likely would be resumed. This is similar to situation of the Monarch entering a Parliament, the Monarch's presence trumps the resident authority of a Ceremonial mace (in the realms that recognise having a Ceremonial mace in Parliament.)

Concerning the new gender (a.k.a Primogeniture) and religion act in the UK. That would be interesting too as well to this same situation. Now if each of the parliaments & Constitutions of the Realms were separate, then technically wouldn't each of the Realms need to pass this same rule about Primogeniture and religion? Otherwise the rest would have to continue recognising males going forward since that is the legislation they inherited at the time of independence or the like? CaribDigita (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Not in Australia. While the Australia Act (1986) says that "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth", the Constitution provides that the states are united in "one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". So there is no conflict; the UK can indeed change the succession. (The Prime Minister was consulted by his British counterpart on arrival in the UK on 28 March, so that aspect has now been taken care of.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A president is never a successor to a monarch. If the monarchy were abolished in Britain, I see no reason that it couldn't continue in, say Canada (User:Miesianiacal would certainly put up a good fight)! Rideau Hall or Hatley Castle would certainly be suitable residences...--Cameron * 13:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In any event, the Australian Constitution refers to "... Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom" (s.2). The UK would not cease to be a sovereign state, but since the monarchy has been abolished, there are no heirs or successors. That is pretty much the point of abolishing a monarchy. The UK presidency would be a completely different and incommensurate institution. The only common element would be that both institutions contain a head of state, but that doesn't mean that the first president was the heir of the last monarch. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally, a republic that supplants a monarchy becomes its legal successor under the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties so that territorial claims and treaty obligations remain in effect, and the citizens do not become stateless. The People's Republic of China, for example, regards itself as the legal successor of the Qing Dynasty. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Eminence noir in the picture

The picture of the Queen and her 15 viceroys contains an image that has aroused my curiosity. It appears to be the silhouette of a tall person, and is separating Peter Hollingworth (Australia) and Filoimea Telito (Tuvalu). They’re both standing in the back row (last 2 on the right), but this tall dark image seems to be standing slightly forward of them. What/who is it? -- JackofOz (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This photo right? ( [1] ) I just checked it out.... At first it started to look to me like a bust on a pedestal. But then (not to make any jokes) it started to look like Darth vader from the neck-down to me.... I can't tell. I could try to email the GG in Barbados and see if I can get any info back. CaribDigita (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

- I did a little detective work. It is a bust. The photo was taken in the Grand Reception Room at Windsor Castle, in front of the room's fireplace. If you see this picture at this link:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/List%20Images/Royal%20Residences/Windsor%20Castle/8000069%20GRR%20(Mark%20Fiennes)%20A4(388x488).jpg , you will see the area [on the right side of the frame] at a different angle, with the bust. Gary Joseph (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent catch man! You would be excellent investigator. CaribDigita (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! If not an investigator at least someone who knows what to do in order not to get caught. It took a few minutes to figure out, although finding a photograph of that room in Windsor Castle with a good angle took the bulk of that time. BestGary Joseph (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Small fix. Belize and the Bahamas have larger land areas than Jamaica.

Jamaica is more populous than Belize and The Bahamas, however Belize and The Bahamas posses larger geographic land areas than Jamaica does. CaribDigita (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Opening note about the United Kingdom

I've no problem with TharkunColl's edit, but perhaps he should've seeked consensus first. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

sought (lol). ðarkun coll 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, should've sought. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is even a common term. Do you have any other reliable sources to show that this term is actually used and moreover that it's used outside the UK? Is Australia an overseas realm? Surely the UK is overseas to Australia? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, why stop there? Why not also say that they are also known as the "other realms" [2], if all we need is a use of the phrase in a reliable source to say that they are "also known as" this or that. Furthermore, given that this is an article about the Commonwealth realms, of which the UK is one, not the non-UK realms, I fail to see why this even needs a mention in the opening sentence. The opener should define the term, not define something that the term does not mean. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the edit is based on the question -- Is the UK the central realm or is it one of 16 equally. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that 'overseas realm' depends on where you're standing. A kiwi happily grazing his sheep in the Antipodes might call the UK an 'overseas realm' if he had the inclination to do so of course.The point of the Commonwealth is that it is an association of equal states. So to say that the Commonwealth realms are the UK and the 'overseas realms' is to immediate assume some sort of relationship with the UK where the UK is the senior partner.To be honest, the whole article should consined to the recycle bin. It has caused more angst than Darth Vader in an asthma attack.--Gazzster (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There's one main difference though. In the UK they don't have a Governor General, in the UK the Sovereign performs all the functions as the Head of State. In places where the Sovereign is not residing all the time, the Governor-General takes over some of the Sovereign's duties. It can be argued she is closer to the UK government than the other realms. I could be wrong, but to put it to a test does the Sovereign have an active role in the day to day running of NZ? The UK does have Counselors of State however they can't dissolve Parliament or anything like that. CaribDigita (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Queen does indeed have an active role in running the UK, and the prime minister sees her every week. Furthermore Prince Charles is apparently notorious for contacting government ministers all the time with one impractical scheme after another. ðarkun coll 12:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

None of which, of course, is relevant to the topic at hand. I've moved the statement to a more apt location in the article, though RHPF is right to question whether the use of the term overseas realm is worthy of mention at all; as he asks: why not then also say the other relams can be referred to as other realms? --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, "overseas" is written in lower case (unlike "Overseas Territories" to refer to the British Overseas Territories). Therefore it appears to me that "overseas" is simply being used to distinguish the realms that are overseas from the realms that are not. There is no special term "Overseas Realm". The usage of the reference to make the claim in the article is highly dubious. It actually only supports the claim that the non-UK Commonwealth realms are overseas from the perspective of the UK. Which is a truism. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the claim altogether, as it constitutes synthesis. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Is'nt ' Commonwealth realm ' a synthesis ? Lejon (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

explaining is good; grammar illogic is bad; substituting personal taste for consensus is naughty

someone seems to be having conniptions over the addition of nine words in the introduction followed by a grammatical clarification.
adding the nine word phrase "(itself an intergovernmental organisation of fifty-three independent member states)" after "Commonwealth of Nations" does not interfere with the intro's flow and adds a needed explanation and distinction between "commonwealth realm" and "commonwealth of nations".
provides needed information.
adding wiki cross-refs for a reader's further information add to the article's value and clarity.
the phrase "These countries have a combined area totalling..."
1. is inelegant (why not "dese countries" or "these there countries" if you insist on using the vernacular)
2. is grammatically illogical. in the paragraph, "these" refers to plural subjects, not the singular "commonwealth realm"
3. is grammatically illogical. in the paragraph, "these" refers to the most recently listed subject. in this case, "these" relates to just mentioned "commonwealth of nations", not the previously mentioned (and grammatically separated) "commonwealth realm"
the phrase "The Commonwealth realms have a combined area totalling..."
1. is not nearly as inelegant
2. is grammatically logical, clarifying the ambiguity of "these countries"
3. is proper usage
4. does not relate to the just mentioned "commonwealth of nations"
5. helps educate the reader in appropriate nomenclature
6. helps distinguish between "Commonwealth realms" and the usage of "Commonwealth" as a shorthand for "Commonwealth of Nations" (see article para. 2)
you should seek consensus before erasing a good faith effort and substituting your personal, shrunken down, grammatically inaccurate, word smithing. blind pride of authorship is a wiki sin.

-- diremarc_(talk) 07:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it you, perhaps, who's having the conniptions? As I noted in my edit summary, the additional information on the Commonwealth of Nations is just tangential information that adds complexity to an already complex subject; if people want to know what the Commonwealth of Nations is, they can simply click on the link and read Commonwealth of Nations. Futher, "these countries", by my reading, clearly means the Commonwealth realms; the most recently listed subject is "16 sovereign states... that each have Elizabeth II as their respective monarch." And repeating "Commonwealth realm" twice in two short sentences is hardly elegant. We can agree, however, that substituting your personal taste for consensus is indeed naughty; as the present version is the long-standing one, and as it is you who desires a change, it is you who should seek the consensus. --Miesianiacal (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is a conniption?--Gazzster (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

you stated: "Futher[sic], "these countries", by my reading, clearly means[sic] the Commonwealth realms; the most recently listed subject is "16 sovereign states... that each have Elizabeth II as their respective monarch."" This is misleading and arguably a lie. you omitted from the quotation the most important phrase. it is a cheap trick to falsely alter original material to support your argument. the full quotation (with part of the disputed sentence) reads:

"A Commonwealth realm is any one of 16 sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations that each have Elizabeth II as their respective monarch.[1] These countries have a combined area totalling 18.8 million km² (excluding Antarctic claims)..."
(previously omitted section emphasized)
it is a bit confusing when accurately quoted. you omitted "within the Commonwealth of Nations" - the heart of this disagreement. this is quite unseemly when the discussion revolves around what exactly are "these countries". this is troubling when the paragraph is easily quoted correctly. of course, by your "reading", the phrase "Commonwealth of Nations" magically vanishes and there is no ambiguity about which countries these countries are (even that is confusing) (a "Do do that voodoo that you do so well" kind of thing). however, the fair minded do not blank out when reading prepositional phrases that eviscerate their point. the closest reference to "these countries", that logically relate to "these countries", is the Commonwealth of Nations. critically altering the actual language of the intro to support your argument is a confession, of sorts, of being grammatically challenged. confusing your tenses (see those [sic]s?) confirms this. When you used subterfuge to make your point, you conceded that point.

also, i did not suggest using "commonwealth realm" in the second sentence, as you misstated. i suggest using "The Commonwealth realms" (plural s) so that readers understand what "these countries" the sentence refers to; and to educate readers that the plural is not commonwealths.

-- diremarc_(talk) 07:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

p.s. -- conniptions are hissy fits; as evidenced by needing to misquote to misprove a point.

No, it was not a cheap trick; it was a method to get at the heart of the sentence. I'll remind you at this point to familiarise, or re-familiarise, yourself with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Miesianiacal (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms

do you lurk by the pc? you allowed the revision less then five minutes to form a consensus before you reverted it to another grammatical errors and a typo.

changing the intro to "A Commonwealth realm is any one of 16 sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations that each have Elizabeth II as their respective monarch,[1] snd [sic] combined have a area totalling 18.8 million km² (excluding Antarctic claims) and a population of 132 million;" makes even less sense and contains a typo. why not leave it as "A Commonwealth realm is any one of 16 sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations that each have Elizabeth II as their respective monarch.[1] The Commonwealth realms have a combined have a area totalling 18.8 million km² (excluding Antarctic claims) and a population of 132 million;" for at least a week (and certainly longer than your rather hasty five minute reaction time)? that way, someone other than you can choose, and your your personality will be removed from the process. your "improvement" has the same problems as the orginal, plus a misspelling. consensus seekingly yours,

-- diremarc_(talk) 23:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of moving to make personal attacks so hastily that you hypocritically make a series of your own grammatical mistakes, you might take some time to develop a more collegial attitude. You see, bulldozing your version of things over that which has stood without complaint from any contributing editors, save yourself, for some time now is neither polite nor within WP guidelines. You are trying to override a consensus, and though you have made your case, I, for one, don't agree with it and think you are making a poorer version of what exists (existed?). As my latest attempt to make some sort of compromise between your version and mine didn't meet your one-sided standards, and you continue to respond with derisive commentary, I suggest you seek further assistance in the dispute resolution process. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Would the following be suitable to you?:

A Commonwealth realm is any one of 16 sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations that each have Elizabeth II as their respective monarch. Together, the realms have a combined area totalling 18.8 million km² (excluding Antarctic claims), and a population of 132 million; all but about 2 million live in the six most populous states, namely the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Jamaica.

As I find it clunky and unnecessary to repeat Commonwealth realm twice in two successive sentences, this at least cuts the repeated words down to just realm. I don't love it, but am willing to live with it if you are. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a request for a third opinion which mentioned that one editor had removed and/or changed comments posted by another editor on this talk page.

From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments: "Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." — Athaenara ✉ 09:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That was a false accusation; the other editor mistook the removal of excessive headers as removal of commentary. --Miesianiacal (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I would agree with the comment saying that repeating the same phrase in two consecutive sentences does seem unnecessary. All in all, I would favour the suggestion given by Miesianiacal a few days ago, but with one tiny nit-picky amendment:

A Commonwealth realm is any one of 16 sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations that each have Elizabeth II as their respective monarch. Together, the realms have a combined area totalling 18.8 million km² (excluding Antarctic claims), and a population of 132 million; all but about two million live in the six most populous states, namely the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Jamaica.

According to the MoS, it's generally better to spell out numbers smaller than ten, especially when it's followed by a spelled-out number (six). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole sentence should be struck. It's a factoid. The size and population of the realms (let alone their Antarctic claims!) is of no relevance to the article as a whole, and it's distracting in the lede, which should just be about introducing the topic. The detailed explanation of why Papua was not entirely a British colony should also be removed from the lede -- it's too low-level and not relevant to introducing the topic. --86.167.123.174 (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Shared Monarchy

The remarks I added about the Commonwealth Realms having a "shared monarchy" have been reverted by Miesianiacal with the comment that the person (the Queen) is shared. Not the monarchy. I don't entirely agree. The fact that all Commonwealth realms have the same head of state is not a coincidence in the same way it would be in a classic personal union (like the one that existed between Hanover and Greatbritain / UK between 1714 and 1837), where it was two different countries sharing a monarch because of the coincidence of two different systems of succesion leading to a number of persons inheriting both functions for a while. I think that this distinction between a coincidental personal union and the arrangement that leads to the existence of the Commonwealth realms should be expressed in the opening paragraph of the article. Perhaps the term "shared monarchy" can be replaced, but I don't think it's just the person that is being shared. It is an Institution that is being shared. And that Institution is the Crown of the Commonwealth realms, vested in a single person and operating in sixteen seperate judicial contexts (being the different sovereign states that are Commonwealth realms). Also another partial revert concerns the fact that the Royal title for each Commonwalth realm follows a single pattern. To put it simply "Queen of Realm X and all the other ones". This arrangement is also not a coincidence but an important aspect of the nature of the subject at hand. The terms used in all the realms basically mean the same. They're just expressed in different ways. I'll have to think about how to put this into better words. The way it is put now, seems to indicate that the whole arrangement is just an afterthought. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a tricky situation. In a sense, the Crown is unified across the realms. However, in another sense, there are 16 separate monarchies, each under the control of one realm alone. There is an attempt to explain this in the Relationship of the realms section, but it seems best to avoid vagueries - i.e. which monarchy is being shared? - in the lead and stick to something tangible - the person of the Queen. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Perhaps the whole arrangement is deliberately obscure. Still that should not make us afraid of giving information, although caution is nessecary. I'm still thinking of a better wording. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actual Word "Queen"

Should not the word "Queen" appear in this line: "...by the Grace of God, QUEEN of the United Kingdom...?" Or is there some supersubtle reason this title was not mentioned here, as in all the previous entries? Xophorus (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The word is there, it's just not in the place one would expect from one's experience with modern English word order. It seems like it's been this way since 1714—maybe because George I was German? I've never seen it explained though. —JAO • T • C 10:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also officially done in a similar way for Canada too. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Peace and war at the same time

Under the main text, note #5 states that "In 1939, the Union of South Africa and Canada, (...), declared war on Nazi Germany some days after the United Kingdom had done so, meaning that King George VI, as king of all three countries, was both at war and at peace with Germany." I had some trouble sorting this out. In the end, it seems to me that what the text means to say is that, for some days, King George VI had been (rather than was) both at war and at peace with Germany. Is this really the case? If my deduction is correct, I propose a change of wording for clarity. SrAtoz (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Deduction correct, point valid. Perhaps some simpler construction, on the lines of "For the week between the United Kingdom's declaration of war on Nazi Germany (3 September 1939) and Canada's (10 September 1939), George VI was simultaneously at war and at peace with Germany"? Of course, the ambiguous Irish situation complicates that entire note, too. —JAO • T • C 15:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I just edited the note paragraph with a longer text than that suggested by JAO above, so as to (1) make all dates explicit, (2) have them in chronological order and (3) bring the George VI statement in a separate sentence, which goes to show that it is the deduction of a logical consequence and not an additional, independent fact. SrAtoz (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Invasion of Grenada works as well. The Queen was the Head of State at the time of the Grenada invasion. The United Kingdom and United States were formally at peace with one another, the Queen was also Head of State of other Commonwealth realms including those involved in the invasion force (Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean bloc). So, while Barbados was in-favour of the Invasion, Canada for instance was opposed to the same invasion.

So basically the same Head of State, was in true armed combat with itself (Eastern Caribbean realms V. Grenada), additionally the HoS was also opposed to armed combat with itself(Canada's point of view), and the HoS was also concurrently at peace with the United States at the same time. For example: (United Kingdom or even Australian V. United States relations or perhaps Australian-UK relations which were two different realms at peace with one another). lol

P.S. I know it goes into the area of separate crowns, but it just goes to show how twisted this can get. CaribDigita (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A person never is at war with any state. It's just the states who fight. King George VI declared war on Nazi Germany on behalf of the UK on September 3rd and on behalf of Canada a week later. Very simple, actually. Henning Blatt (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not alike to??

Unusually for the Church of Scotland, Glasgow and Dunblane Cathedrals are both owned by the British Crown, though they are not alike to the Chapels Royal, which exist in both the United Kingdom and Canada and form a part of the Ecclesiastical Household in those two countries

Strange wording. Can it be expressed more clearly? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

1931

The above was not the year the Commonwealth was established. Merely the year the Statute of Westminster (which nowhere says a Commonwealth is being established etc and indeed refers to the existing Commonwealth). I can see this has been discussed before above where Redking7 raised the discrepancy but he was not listened to. Regards. Staighre (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Where in the article is the error? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal union (again)

In adding some more refs the the Commonwealth realm#Relationship of the realms sections, I've been inspired to look at the subject again; there seems to be a few more levels that were missed the first time around; namely, dates. I'm going to try and sort out the information here, but if anyone wants to chime in, please do so.

Pre-Statute of Westminster

1927: "...and the Dominions was that known to international law as a Personal Union – that is, that the only relation between them was acknowledgement of the same King."
"If Canada, as a sovereign state, continues to acknowledge as her sovereign the individual who occupies the British throne, the relationship will be that known to international law as a Personal Union."[3]
1930: "If a personal union be chosen, the Crown will be forced to act on the king's own discretion [and] since personal discretion is a modern monarch is unthinkable, the only alternative would be a league of states with a common but symbolic crown."[4]

Post-Statute of Westminster

1940: "Whatever the future development of the British Commonwealth may be [it] can be described as that of associations or unions of States, as distinguished from 'personal' unions, on the one hand, and federal States, on the other."[5]
1940: "From time to time the evolving relations between the more or less autonomous political communities under the British crown have been uneasily battened down by different jurists in almost all of these categories [federation, confederation, real union, personal union, suzerainty and vasselage, protectorate], only to break out... in inelegant excrescences that reduce the anxious classifications to despair."[6]
1944: "The common kinship within the British group today establishes a form of personal union, the members of which are legally capable of following different international policies even in time of war."[7]
1947: "The United Kingdom and Canada are to be considered as 'separate kingdoms in personal union under the same king'."[8]

Post-London Declaration

1959: "...but also British authorities have adopted the view, here rejected, that the British Empire has been dissolved into a number of States in a personal union."[9]

From this, it would seem that prior to the Statute of Westminster, there was speculation on what relationship the realms would have; one source saying it could be a personal union, another saying it couldn't. Then, once the Statute of Westminster was passed, early sentiment was that the newly made relationship was not a personal union; though, as the 1940s passed, the notion of a personal union was more accepted. Finally, after the London Declaration allowed for the republic of India to hold membership in the Commonwealth, the idea of the Commonwealth of Nations being a personal union was rejected. Question: does the present text in the article already adequately cover this? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to add in a historical aspect of what opinions were in relation to what others had on the relationship were thought of. More info with clarity is always a good thing. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth the Second

The present monarch of the Monarchy of the United Kingdom is Elizabeth the Second, okay, but how can she be, e.g., Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Tuvalu, since there has never been an Elizabeth the First in the Monarchy of Tuvalu? Henning Blatt (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's done so because that's legally part of the "Queen's official title" in all her realms. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Under MacCormick v. Lord Advocate, the monarch's title is affirmed to be part of the royal prerogative. That has never been altered in any Commonwealth realm. The Crown has simply used this prerogative to standardise Her Majesty's titles across the realms. Bastin 14:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Former Commonwealth Realms table

Some minor cleanup edits I made to the table of Former Commonwealth Realms are being continually reverted. User:BilCat claims that the edits are “uncited changes that don’t seem right” and asks for “reliable sources”. User:Miesianiacal claims that the edits are “unsourced”. The edits are as follows:

1) To the line for “Ceylon” I have added a flagicon for the Ceylonese flag between 1951 and 1972. This is rectifying an omission in the table, which claims that “The flags shown are those in use at the time the country was a Commonwealth realm.” and even notes that “the Ceylonese flag changed in 1951.” The flagicon is lifted directly from Template:Country_data_Ceylon. The history of the Ceylonese flag is given in List of Sri Lankan flags.

-- Why is a citation needed for this change when none was needed for the pre-existing note?

-- What doesn’t “seem right” about it? Do User:BilCat or User:Miesianiacal dispute that the Ceylonese flag was changed in 1951? On what basis? Or do they suppose that the image for the 1951 flag is incorrect? On what basis?

This proposed edit appears perfectly correct and the earlier flag of Ceylon should be added. Davshul (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

2) I aligned the record for Ireland with the record for India by adding a reference to the note that “the term Dominion was still used to describe a Commonwealth realm at this time” [i.e. the time that he Dominion was a realm”].

-- Why is a citation needed for this change when none was needed for the pre-existing note?

-- What doesn’t “seem right” about it? Do User:BilCat or User:Miesianiacal suppose that the term “Dominion” did not apply to Ireland while it was a realm? On what basis?

I see no reason why this should appear for India and not for Ireland. It should either be deleted or appear for both. Is it also not relevent for South Africa. Davshul (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

3) I aligned the record for Ireland with the information provided in the article already cited in the footnote, which refers the reader to Irish head of state from 1936-1949. This article opens “During the period of 1936 to 1949 it was unclear whether or not the Irish state was a republic or a form of constitutional monarchy”. It refers the reader to articles on the primary legal documents involved – the Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act, the 1937 Constitution of Ireland and the External Relations Act of 1948. Each of those articles includes direct links to the source text.

-- Why is a citation needed for this change when none was needed for the pre-existing note?

-- What doesn’t “seem right” about it? Do User:BilCat or User:Miesianiacal suppose that it is generally agreed that Ireland ceased to be a realm only in 1949? On what basis?

I’m just guessing here, but I suspect the real objection is not that there is anything factually wrong, nor that citations are required. I suspect the problem is that User:BilCat and User:Miesianiacal have a position in the dispute: that they believe that only the 1949 date is correct, and they wish the article to reflect only their position, not that of the other side.

But the point is that there is dispute about the date at which Ireland ceased to be a realm, as the pre-existing article already acknowledged. The record for Ireland previously reflected only one side of this dispute, so was not even consistent with the note. The entry should be made consistent for editorial reason, and, as I noted, the WP doctrine of NPOV requires that it be changed in the way I changed it.

Having regard to the generally accepted position, I personally do not not see the need to add the additional note, but I am neutral in regard to this issue and can go either way. Davshul (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

4) The only substantive change I made was to add a record for Rhodesia, clearly stating that it was only de facto a commonwealth realm. I did this in the interests of completeness and historical accuracy. The basic information is given in the paragraph immediately before this section:

The white minority government of Rhodesia in 1965 issued its unilateral Declaration of Independence, and its members affirmed their loyalty to Elizabeth II as Queen of Rhodesia, a title to which she had not consented, did not accept, and was not recognised internationally. … [Smith] appointed, without the Queen's consent, an Officer Administrating the Government to perform the Governor's constitutional duties until 1970, when Smith's government declared Rhodesia a republic.

Lest there be quibbles about the meaning of words, here are the definitions of de facto and Commonwealth realm given by the relevant WP articles, which are perfectly correct:

De facto: “In law, it is meant to mean "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but without being officially established".

Commonwealth Realm: “a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that has Elizabeth II as its monarch”

The Smith regime was certainly, “in practice but not … ordained by law”, “a sovereign state … that [had] Elizabeth II as its monarch.” That seems to me to be more than sufficient grounds to justify noting its existence in this table.

-- Why is a citation needed for this entry additional to the text already present in the previous paragraph of the article?

-- What doesn’t “seem right” about it? Do User:BilCat or User:Miesianiacal dispute the accuracy of any of the facts given in the entry? Which ones? On what basis?

Again, I’m just guessing, but I suspect the real objection has nothing to do with citations or doubts of accuracy, but a monarchist view of history which says that Rhodesia should not be mentioned because it was not de jure a Commonwealth realm. But that’s why the de facto note is present: to set the context. Again, the point of the table is to give a historical summary, not to take sides.

A legalistic objection could be that Rhodesia may have been a de facto realm but it was not in the Commonwealth. I think that is casuistry, but let’s for a moment take it at face value, just for the sake of argument. One could make an equally legalistic argument that it remained in the Commonwealth. Before 1965, Rhodesia was “within the Commonwealth” by virtue of its colonial status under the UK. It did not leave it in 1965, and since Commonwealth members never recognized its UDI, they never expelled Rhodesia from the Commonwealth. So the question is indeterminate.

I see absolutely no justification for adding Rhodesia to the list. Its de facto status may have been that of a constitional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II named as head of state, but that did not make it a "Commonwealth" realm, its Commonwealth status remaining that of a British colony. Davshul (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:BilCat and User:Miesianiacal have made a sweeping condemnation of these edits on grounds they have not justified. It should be clear from this discussion that each edit is different and subject to different considerations. Before engaging in another blind reversion, they should at least look at each edit on its own terms. --71.136.59.244 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD it is you who should not be blindly reverting; instead, you should leave the status quo be until matters are worked out here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Miesianiacal states that these issues should be discussed here, but does not join in the discussion. I have added my comments, as above, and look forward to receiving those of Miesianiacal. Davshul (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Rhodesia should be on the list, albeit with the caveat that its status first as a Commonwealth realm (1965 - 1969) was not legally recognised, neither was its status as a republic (1969 - 1979, then 1979 - 1980 for Zimbabwe Rhodesia). De jure Rhodesia was still the Colony of Southern Rhodesia 1965 - 1980, but that doesn't accurately explain the situation on the ground at the time, particularily considering they kept the Governor under house arrest for about four of five years after UDI. Moreover Ian Smith's determination to have the Queen as Queen of Rhodesia is relevant. --Lholden (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Davshul is correct; Rhodesia was never officially an independent constitutional monarchy and, ergo, could never have been a Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate List of former British dominions

YellowVase (talk) has today created a separate list (subject to correcting the formatting) of former British dominions, which nations he considers were incorrectly included in the list of former Commonwealth realms, as they had adopted a republican constitution prior to the introduction of the term "realm". Although I am not oppose to the new list, I consider that this is an issue that should be discussed. Furthermore, I believe that if the new list is to remain, the Dominion of Newfoundland (which never became a realm before reverting from Dominion status to British rule) should be added to it, in which case, the introduction (stating that all the listed countries became republics) needs to be modified. Davshul (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We touch on a ticklish point here. The term 'realm' has no legal meaning. It is largely a replacement term for 'Dominion'. So one could argue that India, for example, a realm in fact if not in name. --Gazzster (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section. There's already an article on Dominions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments of User: Davushul; disagree with User: Gazzster - "realm" does have a legal meaning, it is used in the titles of each of the realms etc but India and Ireland were never realms (as User YellowVase and User Davusul mention; User Mesianiacal has missed the point entirely (the point being that Ireland and India were never realms). Rather than the YellowVase approach of listing Ireland and India as dominions (which a user correctly mentioned, has an article itslef already), I will remove them altogether. There will, accordingly, be no mention of India or Ireland at all. This seems the only correct way if there is not to be alist of "dominions" which would include Ireland, India and Newfoundland. 84.203.65.224 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they indeed were, as I've noted below. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we have a difficulty. Recall the definition of 'realm' that this article gives: 'A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that has Elizabeth II as its monarch ...' (this would certainly include India, even if it were not formerly styled 'realm'- and indeed the introduction goes on to explain exactly that:)'.....The first realms to emerge were colonies that had already previously attained the status of a self-governing Dominion within the British Empire. For a time, the older term of Dominion was retained to refer to these non-British realms, even though their actual status had changed with the granting of full legislative independence. The word is still sometimes used today, though increasingly rarely, as the word realm was formally introduced with the proclamation of Elizabeth II in 1952,[1] and acquired legal status with the adoption of the modern royal styles and titles by the individual countries. The qualified term Commonwealth realm is not official, and has not been used in law; rather, it is a term of convenience for distinguishing this group of realms from other countries in the Commonwealth that do not share the same monarch.

So it seems to me that either someone is wrong, or our definition of realm needs to be tighter.--Gazzster (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where there's a problem. As I read your quoted paragraph, the idea of a realm and the name "realm" are separate issues and the former existed before the latter. As such, India and Ireland were realms in concept, but not name. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was addressing the users before your past, Miesy. Sorry for the confusion. You're right, of course: the term 'realm' in Elizabeth's titles ('her other realms and territories') is a descriptive term, not a technical one. The word 'realm' does not form part of the official title of the Commonwealth nations. So whether India and Ireland were explicitly referred to as realms is immaterial.--Gazzster (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean... it isn't always about me!? ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Oh, you! Happy new year btw.--Gazzster (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1926 picture and titles of leaders

I have put this image back into the article:

King George V (front, centre) with the heads of his governments. Standing (left to right): Monroe (Newfoundland), Coates (New Zealand), Bruce (Australia), Hertzog (Union of South Africa), Cosgrave (Irish Free State). Seated: Baldwin (United Kingdom), King George V, King (Canada).

giving the names of each of the leaders and replacing the words "with his prime ministers" with the words "with the heads of this governments". User YellowVase in inserted the words "his prime ministers and his president of the executive council of the Irish Free State", the change presumably being intended as a correction because you cannot use the words "with his prime ministers" when the Irish premier was a "president" so to speak (given his formal title). Giving the names of the leaders concered also seems preferable. 84.203.65.224 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in case there are those who don't know - the title of the Head of Government of the Irish Free State, was the President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State. Not "Prime Minister". 84.203.65.224 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Prime minister is a term as well as a title; the King was the Irish head of state and the Irish premier his chief advisor, or prime minister. The complexities of different formal titles need not be laid out in an image caption. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

All ex colonies? Irish exception

The article contains the following sentence:

"Fourteen of the current, and all former, realms were once British colonies that evolved into independent states, the exceptions being the United Kingdom (UK) itself and Papua New Guinea, which was formed in 1975 as a union of the former German New Guinea – administered by Australia as an international trusteeship before independence – and the former British New Guinea – legally the territory of Papua, administered for the UK by Australia since 1905."

This sentence is is not correct if it is determined to list "Ireland" and "India" as "realms" (See above - I do not think they should be listed as "realms" as they were never more than Dominions". If, regardless of this clear fact, users insist on listing Ireland and India as "realms", a further incorrect statement would be that Papua New Guinea was and is the only current or ex realm that was not "an ex-British colony". This is because Ireland was not a British colony. It was an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. If Scotland became a independent country and a member of the Commonwealth, few would argue that it would be appropriate to call Scotland "an ex-British colony". My prefence is to leave the above sentence as is. But, as discussed above, delete Inida and Ireland from the list of "Realms" because, like the Dominion of Newfoundland, they were never realms. 84.203.65.224 (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ireland and India both adopted the Statute of Westminster; the former in 1931, the latter in 1947. As such, they were both Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Excessive colours

Why are the tables excessively coloured? White on grey can be hard to look at. I suggest the tables to be colourless. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how grey and white are "excessive colours." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

White text on a grey background can be a difficult combination for some readers due to insufficient contrast. I support User:Ericleb01's request for a change per Help:Accessibility#Color. Roger (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

How about the tan colour used at the top of this talk-page where it lists the various topics of related WikiProjects? Just a suggestion since this is a colour already being used on WP now. would that be a better replacement for the grey? CaribDigita (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally find that colour hideous; like cheap pantyhose. If the grey in the tables is darkened the contrast will be increased, theoretically improving readability. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Head of state?

I removed the assertion in the opening sentence of the lead that the Queen was the head of state of all sixteen Commonwealth realms on the grounds that this is not supported by the reference given and that there are differing views on whether the Queen or the Governor-General is the Australian head of state. Lacking any definitive source, it is not up to Wikipedia to assert one way or another. User:Liu Tao has reverted this twice, using his own assertion as a basis, after I pointed out that the source did not support the statement. This is an important matter, and we should not have to rely upon unsupported personal opinion.

Looking back into the history of this, I find it is a comparatively recent addition. There has been discussion on this in the past, presumably now archived, and the decision was not to make the assertion that the Queen was head of state of all realms. --Pete (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Which ones, may I ask has a head of state other than the Queen? Liu Tao (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

See my statement above. --Pete (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You told me to look back, look back where? There are 12 bloody pages of archives. And past decisions can also be questioned. Liu Tao (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Look in the comment to which you responded: ...there are differing views on whether the Queen or the Governor-General is the Australian head of state.'. Looking back over a few years, the accepted wording has been that to which I changed it, namely without making any statement on head of state, though of course there is no dispute about the Queen being monarch of all realms. --Pete (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol, Australian Head of State. I visited their government website which specifically states the Queen as their Head of State. Here's the link [10]. It says "Under the Constitution, the reigning British monarch is also the Australian monarch, and therefore Australia's Head of State." Liu Tao (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, opinion is divided. There's a lot of discussion on WP over the years, and the current convention is not to state that either is the Head of State. That seems to keep both parties happy. Government websites, government directories, prime ministers, constitutional scholars all have different opinions, changing regularly. It is a commonplace for major newspapers to refer to the Governor-General as the head of state. Look at the various references given over the years of discussion. --Pete (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got the Australian Federal Government Website which says specifically that the Queen is the Head-of-State and you are telling me that it is not to be taken into account? The Governor-General represents Her Majesty, he acts as the Head-of-State in the place of the Queen. Ask any Governor-General and that will be what they tell you, hell the Australian Constitution itself says it. Liu Tao (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth. Government websites say different things, as I noted. The simple fact is that opinion, throughout Australia and up to the highest levels, is divided on the question. The Governor-General's job is more than representation of the monarch. The Constitution does not say the Queen is the head of state. For one thing, she is not given the head of state powers - they are specifically given to the Governor-General in his or her own right. Please make yourself familiar with the situation. Looking at the relevant articles on Australian government and checking the sources would be an excellent start. --Pete (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, the Constitution does not give the powers to the Governor-General, they are given to the queen. The Constitution says that the Queen has the power to assign the Governor-General any of her own power she deems fit. It also says that the Governor-General exercises his power in place of the Queen, and if the Queen is indeed in town she would be taking over. Heck the definition of 'parliament' doesn't even include the Governor-General. Anyways, I'll agree with you that a dispute is in effect and have already reverted my edits. I apologise for the incovenience. Liu Tao (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If Elizabeth II's isn't Australia's Head of State, what is she? GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to debate either that question or the powers of the Governor-General vs. those of the Queen. The debate going on over at Talk:Governor-General of Australia#Representative of the Queen is a more relevant place. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've provided the source for Elizabeth II's being Head of State of all 16 commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

monarchies

why must each monarchy be listed? is it not all Monarchy of X with X being the realm? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral ending of it by the UK

Since parties such as the BNP and other nationalist groups are increasingly advocating the ending of this hangover from empire, whereby British taxpayers are expected to fund something that also benefits others, should we make a mention of this? As I understand it, the basic idea is that those countries who want the queen as their head of state should pay a fee to the British treasury, based on their population size. ðarkun coll 23:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? - it does seem marginally relevant. Do you have anything verifiable? --LJ Holden 23:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm... Yes; especially for the part about British taxpayers covering other countries' head of state expenditures. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. Depending on how high the "fees" are, such a measure could help convince some of the commonwealth realms that have been considering becoming republics to go ahead and do so, and thus lower the intake of fees. - BilCat (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no fees. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet. - BilCat (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see now what you were getting at. Well, the non-British realms would never agree to needlessly subsidise Britain's head of state costs; everyone pays for their own now, and that's likely the way it'll always be. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to a policy requiring the Commonwealth realms to pay fees for the Queen, even on the BNP's website. Also, the title doesn't make any sense. --LJ Holden 04:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've looked on it too and can't find it either, but I distinctly remember a radio interview in which it was broached. The idea being that basically if these other countries want to retain the Queen (and her successors) as their head of state, they should pay us for the privilege. This is not a question of funding a head of state's duties, but purely one of payment for the use of something that we created. They also intend to only allow immigration from countries that do so. ðarkun coll 09:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's hillarious. Do they expect the US to pay rent on the English language, too? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice, wouldn't it? With extra penalties for using it incorrectly, perhaps? No, obviously, that's different. The UK government no longer controls, indeed never has controlled, the language, but it most certainly does control the monarchy - that's what 1688 was all about. ðarkun coll 16:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Casually put, yes, the UK government "controls" the UK's monarchy. Why anyone would expect other countries to chip in to the maintenance of the British monarchy is beyond me, though. We other realms all have our own monarchies to pay for. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The UK government could simply instruct the Queen to renounce those other "thrones", rendering whatever their constitutions might say about it a hollow sham - rather like Rhodesia's. ðarkun coll 16:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh, Thark! Oh, that was good... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's true though, is it not? ðarkun coll 16:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, so there's no verifiable policy calling for the realms to pay Britain for the Queen? If there is it could be added. --LJ Holden 21:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the issue, I have to say. The realms do financially support their monarchies. They fund the Governor-generalships, representing the Queen. Gazzster (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And I dare say they fund the Queen's state visits too. Gazzster (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue. The issue was, according to the proposal, that the other realms should actually pay the UK for the privilege of using the monarch as their head of state, over and above the costs of merely maintaining a head of state. And if they don't want to, the Queen should renounce those thrones. ðarkun coll 23:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That's great, but where is this proposal and who made it? I can't find anything about it. --LJ Holden 02:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What's that got to do with editing the article Thark? 'Privilege'? Funny thing to call it. How do you quantify a privilege in monetary terms? The only basis for paying money for the queen that I can think of helping to maintain the Court, the Royal Family, the palaces, and the canned pheasant that feeds the royal corgis.But why should we colonials fund the Court of the UK? We have our own 'courts', if you could call em that: the office and household of the Governors-general, which we fund in our own countries and without any help from B.Palace. And if being ruled by E2 is a privilege, surely being allowed to be ruled is a privilege for the queen too. So why cant we be paid for being ruled?Gazzster (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And the UK government could not advise the Queen to abdicate her Commonwealth realms. It would be entirely beyond its jurisdiction. Only the realm in question could abolish its monarchy.Gazzster (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that's the whole point. The UK government could instruct the Queen to do anything it likes. Those other realms might be "beyond its jurisdiction", but the Queen herself most certainly isn't. ðarkun coll 15:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Queen in right of those realms is beyond the British Cabinet's jurisdiction. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are mere legal constructs. The actual Queen herself is under the control of the British government, and it could instruct her to renounce them all. ðarkun coll 16:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Queen in right of the UK (the Queen in her British Council, i.e. the British government) is a mere legal construct. It just doesn't override the others outside its borders. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless the UK government decided to ignore such legal niceties and instructed the Queen to renounce those "thrones" anyway. ðarkun coll 17:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

But she wouldn't be bound by constitutional convention to obey those instructions, the way she would with instructions from British ministers regarding the UK, or instructions from (say) Jamaican ministers regarding Jamaica. The actual question of what she would do in practice is I suppose theoretically interesting, but she'd have no real reason to abdicate as Queen of Barbados just because David Cameron tells her she should. What's he going to do, arrest her? --Jfruh (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that we're talking about a radical, nationalist government, such as that of the BNP, for example. The convention, established in 1688, is that the monarch is the creature of parliament. If the monarch refused to follow an instruction from the government, then in theory arrest is certainly possible, and has many precedents. Parliaments have been deposing and arresting monarchs since the 14th century at least. ðarkun coll 19:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite what the point of this discussion is, then. Obviously everything about this process requires that the political leaders follow established constitutional conventions, and if you're positing a government that isn't going to follow those conventions, then it's kind of useless to try to predict what will happen. I mean, they could tell her she had to abdicate her other crowns or she'd be arrested, or executed. Or they could just tell her to do it and she'd do it to avoid making a fuss. But that's changing the rules of the game. All anyone is trying to do in responding to your queries in this thread are to tell you what the rules of the game as currently played are. --Jfruh (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jfruh. Thark is positing a scenario in which the Parliament of the UK advises the monarch in a matter in which it has no competence. Why are we discussing this bizarre situation and what relevance does it have. But suppose the Parliament acted so arbitrarily and unconventionally as to 'advise' the Queen to abdicate the Crown of Australia on pain of being locked in the Tower: the abdication would have no effect in Australia. This is because according to the letter and spirit of Westminster, and the Australia Act 1986, the only power competent to demand or accept the abdication of the Queen of Australia is the Parliament of Australia!Gazzster (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Then it would be like Rhodesia, recognising as head of state a person who repudiates the role. As for the constitutional competence of the UK government to advise the monarch on any subject it so wishes, this has not yet been tested. It could, for example, remain within the letter of what you're proposing simply by telling the Queen that from now on, only those who are not monarchs of some other country would be acceptable as the British monarch. ðarkun coll 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that the UK parliament and government have recognized that they don't have any authority over the governments and parliaments of the Commonwealth Realms, whereas this was not the case for Rhodesia. And sure, the UK parliament could unilaterally depose the monarch for any reason it chose, just as any of the Realms could. --Jfruh (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The British prime minister could advise the Queen to abdicate her place as Queen of Jamaica if he wished, but whether he did or not, and whether the Queen said yes or not (under duress or not) doesn't matter one bit. She'd still be Queen of Jamaica and would remain Queen of Jamaica until the Jamaican parliament amended its constitution. The same goes for all the other realms, including the UK. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The UK can get rid of its monarchy, easier then Canada can get rid its own monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. To "amend its constitution" all the UK has to do is pass an act of parliament - in fact, it is constantly doing precisely this. If the Queen renounced the throne of any of the other realms, she would only remain Queen of that realm in the same sense as she remained Queen of Rhodesia, namely, from the point of view of that realm only. What would happen, for example, when the Queen refused to endorse the next choice of Governor General? Would the government of that realm grind to a halt? ðarkun coll 08:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No.Although the UK Parliament could, in theory, annul the Statute of Westminster and the Constitution Act of each of the realms, it would be an empty act. For the parrallel acts patriated into the law of the realms would remain entirely unaffected. The Queen would be placed in an impossible situation. Parliament would no longer recognise the constitutional independence of the realms. But the Queen herself, as Queen of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc, would still be bound by the constitutions of her realms. Her abdication could only be accepted by the parliaments of the realms. She would have to accept the annulment of the UK legislation as Queen of the UK. Yet as Queen of her singular realms she would have to accept that it is null and void.Gazzster (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That's all still theory. If, in actual fact, the Queen renounced those thrones, and played no further part in their government, they would no longer receive any new Governors General, so would be unable to function. ðarkun coll 17:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought an abdication or deposition of Elizabeth II, needed the approval of all 16 Parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just another abstraction. I'm talking about an actual, practical event in the real world. ðarkun coll 18:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No you're not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

@ TharkunColl: they would no longer receive any new Governors General, so would be unable to function - not at all. Australia, at least, has an Administrator of the Commonwealth, who steps in whenever the Governor-General is overseas, dies in office, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions of his or her office. The Governors of the Australian states have a standing commission to act as Administrator, the most senior one of them usually doing the honours. It does not require the Queen's approval, but the government's. We could function quite nicely indefinitely with an Administrator or a series of them. Any decision of the Queen to no longer play any part in respect of her Australian Realm would not even be a glitch. She would of course remain Queen of Australia despite her refusal to play ball.

@ Gazzster: No, the UK Parliament can no longer - not even in theory - amend the Australian Constitution Act 1900. It's protected by the Australia Acts 1986. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree Jack.Yet both the Constitution act and the Australia Act are acts of the UK Parliament as well as acts of the Australian Parliament. And insofar as they are UK acts the UK Parliament can overturn its own legislation. Yet, as I say, it would have no effect in Australia. Interesringly a similar case was tested by the Government of Western Australia in 1933. A referendum mandated the Government to petition the Parliament of Great Britain to overturn the Constitution Act to allow A to secede. It refused, replying that although it could overturn the Act, it would have to be ratified by the Australian Parliament, which of course, would not approve secession. Gazzster (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

A parliament cannot bind its successor, and any act can be repealed. This includes any acts granting independence to any colony. Whether such a repeal would have effect in the said colony would be a matter for its courts to decide, if it ever happened. We simply cannot say right now what the outcome would be. ðarkun coll 23:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we can, Thark. The Australia ct 1986 abolishes the vestigial powers of the UK Parliament. An annulment by the UK Parliament would probably have legal effect in the UK, but definitely not in Australia, since any attempt to do so would be undone by the Act itself!Gazzster (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sec 1 of the Australia Act: 'No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory. ' So any act of the UK attempting to nullify the Constitution with legal effect in Australia is automatically void.Gazzster (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And as I posted, the power of the UK to overturn the Constitution Act with legal effect in Australia was tested in 1933.Gazzster (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The UK Parliament gave up the last of its powers over Canada, in 1982. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The original issue here is the Queen, and the fact that the UK parliament can instruct her to renounce those "thrones". Or, if you prefer, it can tell her that no one will be permitted to be the British monarch who is also monarch of somewhere else - which amounts to the same thing. The constitutions of those countries would still name her as monarch, but would be a hollow shell devoid of substance if she herself repudiated the title, just like with Rhodesia. ðarkun coll 08:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The UK parliament certainly cannot tell her to renounce any of her non-UK thrones; that is solely the province of the non-UK parliaments. To renounce a throne one already occupies is to abdicate it. We have a precedent for that in Edward VIII. Some Realm's parliament could go through this process to get Elizabeth off the throne, but the relevant Governor-General would reserve the passed bill for the Queen's personal signature, and if she was being forced from the throne without her consent, she might just refuse to sign the bill into law, and then where would we be. No, this would never happen. If the Queen decided she's given enough and wanted to abdicate, she would initiate the process just as her uncle did. In any case, Edward VIII's abdication did not mean the end of the monarchies he held - they continued without the slightest ripple, under George VI. Elizabeth likewise would be succeeded by Charles. To force her off the throne, only to have her son succeed her, would only be done for very personal reasons such as her becoming the paramour of Robert Mugabe, who moves into Buck Palace, kicks Phil out, and escorts her on all her international travels including visits to the other Commonwealth realms. It's clear were in the realm of the most fantastic absurdity now.
But the UK parliament could, I suppose, pass a law that says no one will be permitted to be the British monarch who is also monarch of somewhere else. But first up, before it ever got to the point of her considering renouncing the other 15 crowns, that law would mean trashing the Statue of Westminster, and effectively mean the UK leaving the Commonwealth. That's if the law itself wasn't challenged and found to be unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Currently there are 16 independent realms who all have it enshrined in their own domestic law that they share the same common monarch at all times. No realm can unilaterally change this, without opting out of the Commonwealth altogether. But then, what would be the point of a realm instructing the monarch to renounce her throne if such a move would inexorably mean the withdrawal of the realm from the Commonwealth and the ending of the monarchy in that country? Why not just leave the Commonwealth and be done with it? This is in the same fantasy-land as before.
The question was headed "Unilateral ending of it by the UK". LJ Holden above said this made no sense, and I've also been wondering all along what "it" was. Maybe the Commonwealth? Maybe the Statute of Westminster? Since this page is discussion about Commonwealth realms, maybe that? But I agree with LJ, the UK unilterally ending the Commonwealth realms makes no sense. One member of a club cannot cause all the other members to no longer be members, because then there's no club left. One member can, however, choose to itself no longer be a member. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And if we're going to look at interesting, if impossible, scenarios, why not the other way around? One of the realms could 'advise' the Queen that she could no longer be Queen of that realm and Queen of the UK. So would Your Majesty please abdicate the throne of the UK? The realms being absolutely equal, this is a theoretical possibility too. But I think Tharky is harking back to his idea that the UK monarchy is superior to the others. Agree with Jack. Interesting though this has been, its clearly absurd and doesn't help us edit.Gazzster (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how you define "superior". If something that is real can be said to be superior to something that is simply an artificial legal construct, then obviously the UK monarchy is superior - it actually has a real live monarch who lives there. So your example, of course, is absurd. How could any of the other realms force the Queen to comply, when she lives in the UK? ðarkun coll 23:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

How is all this palaver about impossible, privately dreamt-up scenarios improving the Wikipedia article called "Commonwealth realm"? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not offering any improvements atall. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(To Tharky) Any 'legal construct' is by definition, artificial.The monarchy of the UK is a 'legal construct', artificed by Parliament. The legal construct of the UK monarchy is no more or less real than the legal construct of Canada, New Zealand or Australia.Gazzster (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The UK monarchy has legal constructs, yes, but unlike the others it also has a real live person. I think the other realms are apt to forget this at times, since they have so little to do with her. Here, the royals are in the news almost every day for something or other. ðarkun coll 09:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Howabout we deal with something that is on the verge of possible happening. The UK is considering amending the royal succession to have the -eldest child- next in line 'regardless of gender'. However, under the current system, they need the approval of the other 15 realms to do so. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I see we're back again to the bizarre argument that the reality of a country's monarchy is directly related to the geographical location of the monarch. I guess, then, the British monarchy ceases to be real whenever the Queen is in another realm and that realm's monarchy becomes real. Very odd. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You only call it bizarre because it must seem a very odd concept to you, actually having a real live monarch. But I assure you it isn't. And yes, the reality of a country's monarchy really is related to whether it has an actual monarch or not (visits, however, are a reductio ad absurdum). ðarkun coll 21:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, then, if the non-UK realms, despite all legal and constitutional appearances to the contrary, don't actually have a real monarch or a real monarchy, there is nothing for the Queen to renounce and she is queen of one and only one country, the UK. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

-

What on earth does any of this have to do with this Wikipedia article, Tharkun? This article should not mention obscure proposals by small extremist parties, nor should it dwell on hypotheticals imagined only in your head. john k (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the third time the question of relevance has been raised. I think we've xtended enough latitude to Tharky now, and perhaps this should be closed off. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened to...

Namibia (or do the Saffers object), and Botswana - an England in Africa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.166.220 (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

-er, sorry, what? Both were republics from independence, so both are irrelevant to this article.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Borden or Lansing?

The text accompanying the picture of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles names the fourth person sitting from the left as the Prime Minister of Canada, Robert Borden. The text on the wikimedia commons page of the same picture names this person as US Secretary of State Robert Lansing. The webpage of the Imperial War Museum (where this painting is kept) also names him as Robert Lansing. The Canadian delegate is actually George Eulas Foster, the fourth person standing from the left. I've changed this accordingly. 83.84.123.35 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

When somewhere becomes republic do they have to pay the Monarchy for Crown lands?

When somewhere becomes a republic do they have to pay the Monarch for Crown lands?

This video:

The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained

It has me wondering. Barbados has the "Savings clause" in its Constitution, so technically if this law about Crown Lands was in place in 1966, then Barbados would have it enshrined in ancient colonial law.

I mean, if Barbados becomes a republic. would the gov't owe the Queen billions for land??? Have any of the other former realms had to pay for becoming republics? CaribDigita (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because in constitutional law 'The Crown' signifies the Government,of which the Queen is an integral member. The monarch does not personally own Crown land. When a nation becomes a republic the title remains with the government.Gazzster (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No - see what happened in the Republic of Ireland, Trinidad and Tobago, India, etc. --LJ Holden 04:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Crown land" is basically just a synonym for "state land" or "public land". It does not signify that it is the personal property of the monarch. Roger (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's not get confused between Crown Land and the Crown Estate. The two are not the same. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Shared monarchy or personal union

Can the article provide a clearer definition of whether the commonwealth realms are in a personal union or a shared monarchy? The references about this are very old and concern the commonwealth rather than the commonwealth realms - quite different. It seems to me that the relationship is much more like a shared monarchy than a personal union. In a personal union, there are two countries but only one monarchy. In a shared monarchy, there are separate countries, and separate monarchies, but they happen to share the same monarch. If 'shared monarchy' is googled there are numerous references to the commonwealth realms. If 'personal union' is googled there are very few. Does anyone have any up to date references that might clarify this? Neelmack (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is a strong difference between the two expressions. I think they might be historical and cultural rather than real differences. For example, England and Scotland are described in terms of 'personal union' from 1603 to 1707. But in modern terms they could be described as being governed by a 'shared monarchy'. I suspect 'shared monarchy' is the preferred term nowadays. 'Personal union' has feudal overtones, implying a status of personal ownership by a monarch.Gazzster (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe a line should go in saying that 'shared monarchy is the most commonly used term nowadays'. I will look for some examples to add in as references. Neelmack (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A Personal union as I can understand it is a form of a shared monarchy and I also agree it is a more commonly and probably politically correct used term these days. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I provided a link to the previous discussion. You should read it. → ROUX ₪ 16:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Then you better go to that article I linked & change it! That-Vela-Fella (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the previous discussion? I can only think you haven't, since 'personal union' as a term is most decidedly not more common these days. → ROUX ₪ 17:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh holy God, this again? You guys should read here, this was hashed out here several years ago. Warning, it will take some time. → ROUX ₪ 20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hold on! It's definitely not a "shared monarchy"! They don't share a monarchy, they are all separate ones (see Monarchy of Belize v. Monarchy of Papua New Guinea).. The United Kingdom is a shared monarchy, because its countries share a monarch. But the Queen of Belize is not shared with the people of Papua New Guinea. They share the same person as queen, but not the same queen. Rennell435 (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a single country, so no. Personal union has not been used to describe the countries of the Commonwealth in quite some time. I gave you a link to the previous discussion; please read it. → ROUX ₪ 16:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the USA be on the list of "No longer commonwealth realms"?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.152.224 (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No. The USA has never been a monarchy, and it has never been a member of the Commonwealth. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC).

New Jamaican gov't will pursue - republic.

Here we go again.

PM Portia: ‘Queen must go’ - Fri, January 06, 2012 - 12:01 AM

[SNIP]PRIME MINISTER Portia Simpson Miller yesterday said Jamaica's golden jubilee would see the country making significant strides towards breaking its attachment to the British Empire. [ . . . ] Former Prime Minister Bruce Golding, who was absent from the swearing-in ceremony for Simpson Miller yesterday, last April said Jamaica should replace the Queen as head of state before Independence Day this year. Jamaica will mark 50 years of Independence on August 6.[/End SNIP]

GOODBYE MONARCHY: New PM wants Republican status for Jamaica; will also seek to join CCJ - Fri, 06 Jan 2012 07:00:00
Jamaica to become a republic - Friday January 6, 2012

CaribDigita (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that they evidently realise they're independent, one would assume it's unnecessary to inform them they're no longer part of the British Empire. However, it seems someone should remind Ms. Miller, before she ends up wasting her time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's good to see, that one of the Commonwealth realms might be using commonsense. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If they think they need freedom from the British Empire, it would seem this new government is somewhat lacking in the common sense department. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Republican propaganda, gotta love it. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

None the less, we shall see how this one goes. A "Jamaican Queen" how can someone have a foreign embodiment of one's own Constitution? By virtue of being a separate "Kingdom of Jamaica", should mean Q.E. II holds concurrent Jamaican citizenship. CaribDigita (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Republic? No problem 'mon', says Queen. Queen fine with Jamaica going its own way. CaribDigita (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"As we celebrate 50 years of independence, we must complete the circle of independence." Figure that one out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

By the grace of God

Most, but not all, Commonwealth Realms use the phrase by the grace of God to describe the monarch. Papua New Guinea does not do so and I have deleted this phrase from list of styles for Elizabeth II. In Papua New Guinea, the Queen's official title is: Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Papua New Guinea and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth as stated in article 85 of the Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea. See www.igr.gov.pg/constitution.pdf. Jm3106jr (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The official website of the British Monarchy, [11], cited as a reference in the clause you edited, says "The Queen's Royal style and title in Papua New Guinea is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Papua New Guinea and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth." TJRC (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, are you saying that the British monarchy's website is a more authoritative source on the style of the Queen of Papua New Guinea than the constitution of Papua New Guinea? Because I'd tend to think the other way around, actually. --Jfruh (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking interpreting the constitution is contrary to both WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. TJRC (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly an interpretation. He's just reporting what the constitution actually says. Neither is it original research: a Google book search for "Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Papua New Guinea", returns 59 results. In contrast a Google book search for "Elizabeth the Second, By the Grace of God, Queen of Papua New Guinea", doesn't return any. Within the former the The Statesman's Year-Book of 1992-93 (snippet view only unfortunately) clearly reports that in Papua New Guinea, Elizabeth's title is "Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Papua New Guinea and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth". — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's not an interpretation. You're effectively simply adding a quote from the constitution. Rennell435 (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I should add as OP that while I am aware that the British Monarchy website as noted by TJRC does indeed include the words "by the grace of God" in Elizabeth II's style as Queen of Papua New Guinea, I knew this to be an error as Papua New Guinea is the only Commonwealth Realm that does not use this phrase in its royal style - as stated in its constitution. Each Commonwealth Realm is at full liberty to determine the style it uses for its monarch. The UK government has no say whatsoever in this regard and certainly the British monarchy's website is not authoritative for the style used by the Papua New Guinean monarchy. Jm3106jr (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Latin style of Elizabeth II in the UK

I undid the deletion by Miesianiacal who, when deleting the Latin style, asked if "Latin is an official language of the UK?." Latin is not an official language of the UK, nor is old French - but both are used in official documents. The reason for inserting the Latin style is that it is used on the Great Seal of the Realm and on various UK coins in abbreviated format. So, Latin is officially used - and a Latin form was provided in the proclamation of Elizabeth II's style upon her accession in the Royal Proclamation of 29 May 1953. See British Foreign and State Papers 1953, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1962, vol 160, page 2. Jm3106jr (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Latin is also used in Canada and other realms. I don't believe that justifies the inclusion of the Latin translation of the Queen's titles in those realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Latin is used in Canada only on coins but it is not part of the official title and style of the Canadian monarchy as established by statute. It is not used on the Great Seal of Canada - which is rather in English and French. However, in the UK, the Latin style has often been given first followed by the English in the various Royal Proclamations on the current monarch's title and style. The Latin also explains the abbreviated format on British coins where it reads ELIZABETH II DG REG FD. A quick Google search inputing Elizabeth Secunda Dei Gratia yields 405 hits. All British monarchs and those of England and Scotland before the union of the crowns have had their Latin title and style proclaimed. Thus, I see no reason why it should not be included as it is officially used. If others feel that having the Latin title is somehow incorrect or misleading, besides Miesianiacal, I would be interested to hear from you. Jm3106jr (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidently you either didn't read WP:BRD or decided it somehow doesn't apply to your edits.

You're trying to throw out an awful lot of reasons why the Latin version of the title should be included here in the hopes one will stick. But, ultimately, this isn't an article on the style and title of the British monarch; this is an article about the Commonwealth realms and it has a section of a chart that shows the monarch's title in each realm in the official languages of that realm or the English translation of the title in non-English speaking countries. Latin isn't even a spoken language in the UK, let alone an official one. The Latin version of the British title really doesn't belong here. Why are you so insistent to the point of edit warring that it should stay? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My addition was only meant to make the titles chart more comprehensive. My previous edit of the said chart was to correct the title of the monarch of Papua New Guinea - which was met with an objection (you can read about that above) but the reasoning was rejected by other editors based on the facts and so the revision stands. I never make additions simply to start an edit war - in fact this is the first time I have encountered one. I am not putting out an argument in the hope it will stick. I simply disagree with your opinion. You have not provided any compelling reason so far and no one else has chimed in one way or the other. It is your opinion that the Latin title does not belong here. It is also your opinion that - with the exception of Canada - no other languages should appear in the chart.

I have indeed read WP:BRD and I quote from it now:

BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

It seems to me that I am following BRD in full. I began the discussion on the talk page per BRD. I have made a good-faith effort to improve the page. You have decided you did not like the change and reverted it. I made a another bold effort with added discussion on the talk page and you reverted it again - contrary to BRD. I am not being insistent that the Latin title should stay simply for the sake of an edit war. I think it is an interesting and informative addition, based on historic and official usage, that only minimally alters the original content. Thus I am baffled why you feel so strongly that it should not be permitted to remain. If a plurality of editors decides to comment and agrees that the Latin title should be removed, I will happily defer. This however has not happened. Jm3106jr (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It is WP:BRD, not WP:BRDRRRRR. The guideline is there to help avoid edit wars; according to it, you should not have reverted my first revert of your addition; once reverted it was up to you to leave the revert be and begin discussion to find consensus. Right now, the content is there because you've bullied it in, not because there's a general agreement to keep it.

Also, please read again what I wrote: I didn't say you were trying to include the Latin translation in order to engage in an edit war; I asked why you believe it's so important to include the Latin translation that you will edit war in order to keep it there. I think I've made myself pretty clear: This isn't a page about the style and title of the British monarch; if we're to have the sovereign's various titles included in this page, it should be kept to the most minimum information; the official languages of each country or (since this is English Wikipedia) the English translation of a non-English speaking country's title. The Latin translation simply isn't relevant enough to the subject of this page to warrant a place in it. If more people agree with your opinion then obviously the content in question will stay. Right now, however, we're in a bit of a Mexican standoff. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we interpret WP:BRD somewhat differently. However, the insertion of the Latin title in the chart was simply an attempt to contribute positively to the page. I am not hellbent that it remain. Since we are indeed at a sort of Mexican standoff, I would simply welcome other editors to chime in and end it. I will defer to the majority and I will not revert it again. Even if you do opt to delete it (which you of course may do at any time), I will not undo the deletion. My addition isn't vital to the page, but I think it is worth preserving.Jm3106jr (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Canadians acclaim their royal guests. School children were among the most vociferous greeters of the royal couple throughout the tour.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Canadians acclaim their royal guests. School children were among the most vociferous greeters of the royal couple throughout the tour.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition

A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that has Elizabeth II as its monarch and head of state.

Should we not generalise it to the monarch, whoever he or she happens to be, and not make it about any one individual person? I realise this is a tough call, since the monarch wears 16 hats of equal status, and if we mention one of them, we have to mention all of them. But the fact remains that if Elizabeth dropped dead tomorrow, Charles would then be king. It's easy enough to change the names, but the principle is that it's not about any one person but the institution of the monarchy itself. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That it's easy enough to change the names is entirely the point. Deciding how to make reference to the sovereign other than by name is extremely difficult. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Canadian flags

The table headed "Current Commonwealth Realms" shows the entry for Canada as having three flags, only one of which is current. Is this some attempt to raise the standard? --Pete (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations...

A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations. It seems to me that "The Realm of New Zealand" does not fit within this definition, the very first sentence of the article. New Zealand is a sovereign state, but as "the Realm of New Zealand" comprises several sovereign entities, we should rewrite this crucial sentence to avoid misleading our readers with well-meant untruths. --Pete (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Letters Patent 1983 outline that the Queen of New Zealand is sovereign over the Realm of New Zealand - comprising New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency - and is therein represented by the Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief of the Realm of New Zealand. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but it doesn't make "the Realm of New Zealand" into a sovereign state. We need to find a wording that is both accurate and informative. --Pete (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I would not be sure that Cook Islands etc... fit the complete "sovereign" definition, they are self governing and yet they are New Zealand citizens, but where does that leave them? There is always at least one exception to every "rule", and the Realm of New Zealand is a sovereign realm within the Commonwealth Realms. The Québécois people are considered a Nation within Canada, Québec and the other provinces have the ability to make certain international treaties without the involvement of the Federal government, they participate in international organizations alone, or as equals with Canada. Are they sovereign, no. Do we need to make an explanation of how all that works in the article about the Commonwealth Realms? No. We also do not need to go into huge details about how The Realm of New Zealand is a sovereign Realm, comprized of multiple self-governing entities.--UnQuébécois (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure: "Unlike Australia and Canada, the Realm of New Zealand is not a State." But, the Realm of New Zealand has a head of state: "The Realm of New Zealand shares its Head of State with fifteen other realms." (Both quotes from [12]) This is rather confusing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It is confusing, but our job is to provide information to our readers, not confuse them. Let me put it this way. In the list of sovereign states we do not find an entry for "the Realm of New Zealand". New Zealand is on that list, however. Can we treat the two entities as identical? --Pete (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This would be un-referenced unless there is a source for it, but, has New Zealand ever been called the "Kingdom of New Zealand?" because I think that could sum this up much better. Each realm is a separate Kingdom with a shared Sovereign as their Head of State. I use the recently restructured political arrangement for the Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands somewhat as an example. The main exception is the N.L.'s Constitutional arrangement I believe expressly states it is one- Kingdom. I'm not sure the Commonwealth Realms have it stated anywhere that they are the same integrated Kingdom therefore I believe it would be possible to get away with calling each separate Kingdoms. CaribDigita (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Pete, and I'm trying to suss out what is the correct information so as to not confuse or mislead readers. Things don't seem as clear to me anymore (whether what I was clear about before was right or not). There's a polity called the Realm of New Zeland that has the Queen of New Zealand as its head of state, who is represented by the distinclty titled "Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief of the Realm of New Zealand". But the Realm of New Zealand is not a state. How can a non-existant state have both a head of state and a representative specifically thereof?

Perhaps the problem is that although nations are free to organise themselves into whatever shape they want and subsidiary territories such as Cook Islands or Guernsey or Norfolk Island likewise but more so, difficulties arise when we try to categorise them as one thing or another. Here we have New Zealand the member of the United Nations and New Zealand the jewel in the British crown. The two are not the same, and I think that changing Wikipedia's perception of New Zealand depending on which article we read (or write) is not a sound strategy. We are going to find people forever picking at the places where the two perceptions overlap or fail to meet.

I find that looking at the world through eyes that are focussed on monarchical language and values is a view that jars with most. Certainly, there is a place for this view in exclusively monarchical articles, dealing with crowns and thrones and titles and so on, but we're on the margin here. The British Commonwealth is made up of many nations, not all of which have even a token role for the Queen. At every stage, we should consider whether we look at something through what I might call "UN" or "Buckingham Palace" eyes. Keep the perception appropriate and distinct.

A "sovereign state", in Wikipedia's UN-centric world-view is a sovereign state, regardless of whether there is a sovereign or not. If we define Australia and Canada and others as such, linking them to their national articles, we should do exactly the same with New Zealand, whether it be in text or a list. However, it is also important that we define exactly what is meant by "Realms" from the monarchical point of view and exactly how this differs from the wider view. We can't leave some areas indistinct or undefined, otherwise we are going to confuse readers.

Looking at the Realm of New Zealand article, it contains some hogwash, to be polite. One suggestion of the future of the Realm should New Zealand become a republic is this: "A New Zealand republic with the Cook Islands and Niue remaining in free association with New Zealand, but retaining the Queen of New Zealand as their head of state."[13] That's just nonsensical. Presumably these islands could retain their association, but if there is no Queen of New Zealand, then they could hardly have her as their head of state.

Mies, you have got to decide how you are going to approach this. The sentence that begins our article is correct if we look at the various Commonwealth Realms in a "UN" fashion as sovereign states with seats on the UN and diplomatic representation and so on, but not correct if you insist on this article having a "Buckingham Palace" world view, where the titles and protocol of British royalty rule supreme and something called "the Realm of New Zealand" has currency and meaning. In that case, we'll have to change the opening defining sentence to something else. I bow to your knowledge and devotion in this area, and the last thing i want is for this to turn into another "thing", but as it stands the article is a source of confusion and inconsistency rather than knowledge. --Pete (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't glean a clear message from the above, though I note some of it is based on inaccuracies.

Regardless, it does seem that New Zealand is recognised as the sovereign state, despite it being a component of the larger Realm of New Zealand. As far as I can tell from various sources describing the Realm of New Zealand, the closest parallel to that entity is the full territory under the sovereignty of the British Crown; i.e. the United Kingdom plus the British Overseas Territories plus the British Crown Dependencies, where the United Kingdom is equivalent to New Zealand, the BOTs to Tokelau and the Ross Dependency, and the BCDs to the Cook Islands and Niue. It's just that what's under the British Crown doesn't have a name like what is collectively under the New Zealand Crown. It would follow, then, that New Zealand, like the United Kingdom, is the sovereign state, and the other dependencies and territories are either subject to the Crown of New Zealand (the territories) or in free association with it (the self-governing, associated states).

In other words: It appears I was wrong. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say that you were wrong. It depends on one's perspective. It just seems to me that the "Realm of New Zealand" is not a sovereign state in Wikipedia's definition, although "New Zealand" is, and we should try to sort out any confusion. I certainly don't want to dump the information that the Commonwealth Realm has a subtly different existence to the UN member state. --Pete (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it seems that New Zealand, the UN member state, is the Commonwealth realm, just like the UK, quite apart from the British Crown Depedencies, is the Commonwealth realm. That's what I was wrong about... I think.

I'd like to see what UnQuébécois has to say. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You are better informed than I about these sort of things - I'm interested in making sure that this article is without contradiction or confusion, and currently it only makes sense to people who already know the details. --Pete (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that to a certain extent the NZ situation is close to the UK situation. However, the British Crown Dependencies are not sovereign states, and the UK Legislature can legislate for them, where as the Cook Islands, for example, NZ can not legislate for them, but do act on their behalf only at the islands request. I am not sure how to go about quickly explaining that the Realm of New Zealand is one of the 16 Commonwealth Realms, while New Zealand is one component of that Realm. The situation to me is like this: Kingdom of Denmark = Realm of New Zealand = sovereign state, Denmark = New Zealand = main component of Kingdom/Realm (generally what the Kingdom/Realm is called), Greenland = Cook Islands = associated/autonomous/self governing state within the Kingdom/Realm. --UnQuébécois (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is, though, that the Realm of New Zealand is not one of the sixteen Commonwealth realms. "Unlike Her Majesty's other realms... the Realm of New Zealand has no international legal personality and is not itself a State."[14] It seems New Zealand is the Commonwealth realm; it is with New Zealand that Cook Islands and Niue are in free association; they are, per the 1983 Letters Patent, clearly under the sovereignty of the Queen of New Zealand. "[The Cook Islands] did not become fully independent, but instead moved to a status of self-government in free association with New Zealand, signified by its continued recognition of the Queen in right of New Zealand as Head of State. Niue followed suit... emerging as a self-governing state in free association with New Zealand. Just like the Cook Islands had done, it retained the Queen in right of New Zealand as its Head of State."[15] Here, it is New Zealand that is listed as a Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Dominions are not realms

This article makes it pretty clear that, though into the 1950s, some realms remained named as "Dominion", Dominions and realms are not the same thing, and hence the term "Dominion" fell out of use; by the time India, Pakistan, Ceylon, and Fiji became realms, "Dominion" was either on its way out or gone. The names of those countries as listed in the "Former Commonwealth realms" section should therefore not link to Dominion of India, Dominion of Pakistan, Dominion of Ceylon, and Dominion of Fiji. Further reasons to avoid those articles are: the first is completely unsourced, the second is poorly sourced, the third claims in the opening sentence that the country wasn't named "Dominion of Ceylon", and the fourth is also poorly sourced and, of the sources there, none affirm the name "Dominion of Fiji" ever existed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems the Indian Independence Act did in 1947 create an independent India and Pakistan as Dominions, but did not name the countries the "Dominion of India" and the "Dominion of Pakistan". So, it seems false to claim, in article titles or elsewhere, that there was anything named "Dominion of India" or "Dominion of Pakistan".

All the four articles listed above could be moved to fall in line with the rest that call themselves "[Country Name] (Commonwealth realm)". But, then, I've never seen the need for any of those pages, since the main articles on those countries have history sections and articles dedicated the countries' histories that already cover each's realm period. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Typically there is an Wikipedia Article for each incarnation of a State, Irish Republic/Northern Ireland, Irish Free State - Republic of Ireland with "links" in the info box to the previous/next incarnation of that country. I am assuming that the Dominion of India article fills this same purpose. Being named "Dominion of India" officially or not, it is still possible to refer to it as such in describing it as the dominion of India. Many nouns like Dominion were capitalized in British legal documents, like the BNA 1867 - "Dominion of Canada", later such documents did not follow the same style. (I haven't read the 1947 act as of yet)--UnQuébécois (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading through the act, it is very easy to see why one would call the two countries Dominion of India and Dominion of Pakistan, even if not specifically listed as such. All references in the act refer to the new Dominions or "that Dominion" or "the Dominion". All instances of Dominion are capitalized.--UnQuébécois (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There's not a "France (first monarchy)", "France (first republic)", "France (second monarchy)", "France (second republic)", etc.; nor a "Greece (monarchy)" and "Greece (republic)"; nor "Cambodia (first monarchy)", "Cambodia (communist republic)", "Cambodia (second monarchy)"; nor a "Dominion of Canada"; etc., ect. As with the former Commonwealth realms, the countries continued, the form of government changed. I thus still see no need for any of those "[Country Name] (Commonwealth realm)" articles; they were almost all created by the same editor and offer readers no additional information to what's already provided elsewhere; this might be why or partly why they're all essentially orphaned. They should all be either deleted or merged into other existing articles.

In relation to the four specifically in question here: 1) the countries were not named "Dominion of [X]" and 2) the pages are badly or completely un-sourced. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is a Kingdom of France (1791–1792), French First Republic, First French Empire, Bourbon Restoration, July Monarchy, French Second Republic. There is Kingdom of Greece, Second Hellenic Republic and so on. There is French Indochina, Kingdom of Cambodia (1953–1970), Khmer Republic, Democratic Kampuchea. The Dominion of Canada is the current incarnation of Canada, Province of Canada the previous Canada, Lower Canada and Upper Canada, Province of Quebec (1763–1791). --UnQuébécois (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I stand corrected. (Though the "Dominion of Canada" redirect doesn't count.)

Still, the four "Dominion" articles aren't correct. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, we are still the Dominion of Canada! We just stopped using Dominion! I see what you are saying, and understand, agree that the articles are of poor quality, however the links should be to the "country" at the time in question, maybe directly to the section in question of the India/Pakistan etc article?--UnQuébécois (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This article indicates "Dominion of Canada" was never - legally, anyway - "Dominion of Canada".

I believe all those "[Country Name] (Commonwealth realm)" articles are pretty sub par. But, if they're to stay and wait for improvement by some dedicated editors, then the other four in question - the "Dominion of [X]" articles - should be moved to fall in line with the rest. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal or not, it is a title that is still used as of this day by the government (not very often thankfully). When differentiating between the different Dominions, it is normal to specify which Dominion, hence the designation of Dominion of X, where X is the country in question. We do not always call things by their "official" or "legal" names, Greece, for example is not the name of the country, but Hellenic Republic. India at the time has been referred to as such: 1999 Book by Sir Penderel Moon - "The British Conquest and Dominion of India" ISBN# 8190109804, for example. And here [16]. Article names are not always the legal name of things as per WP:ON. I wasn't there in 1947ish, So I can't say what was used at the time to refer to India under Dominon status, but it does not look uncommon to have refereed to the country as Dominion of India, just like Dominion of Canada.--UnQuébécois (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This just gets more and more convoluted. After Canada was termed as a dominion in 1867, the word came to mean a self-governing country still subject to varying degrees of control from Westminster. When India, Ceylon, and Fiji attained independence and Pakistan was created, they were fully sovereign; so, they didn't even fit the definition of a dominion in the context of the British Empire, though the term dominion was used to refer to India and Pakistan at the time, though the term was by then on its way out of use. There's also no indication that the exact phrases "Dominion of India", "Dominion of Pakistan", etc. were ever used either officially or frequently (commonly). So, I hold that those "Dominion of [X]" articles be either retitled or merged. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Try This Search: [17] it appears the press of the day used it.--UnQuébécois (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no indication of widespread use of "Dominion of India" (I assume; we're discussing four articles here) at your link. In fact, there's nothing there at all except the Google home page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I found 52 results in Google "news" search for "Dominion of India" (with quotes) for 1947 alone. I realize there are 4 wp articles, I did look up "Dominion of Pakistan" and got comparable results for 1947 news. This one mentions both as Dominion of.--UnQuébécois (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's still taking me to the Google home page; but after searching, yes, I get the same result. I'm not sure that meets the requirements of WP:COMMONNAME, though. Within the same parameters, just "India" brings up 6,268 more results. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, but the point is Dominion of India/Pakistan is a term that is not unknown or uncommon to refer to the countries at that time period. It can also differentiates it from India the current incarnation of the country by using a descriptive title avoiding the whole India (Dominion), I personally prefer to avoid parentheses whenever possible (Along this principle Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics): In general, country-specific articles should be named using the form: "(item) of (country)", not that this applies here.).--UnQuébécois (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It was apparently known, but there's zero indication it was common. Regardless, if there's to be a debate about the articles' titles, it should be in anoter venue or other venues. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

-In actual fact; it appears that India was indeed officially called the 'Dominion of India'; but Pakistan was not, although the term 'Dominion of Pakistan' was sporadically in official use.

Evidence? The following sources all describe India as the 'Dominion of India':

Indo-Swiss Friendship treaty of 1948:http://www.oecweb.com/Indo-Swiss_Friendship_Treaty_14_August_1948.pdf

The Instrument of Accesion of Jammu and Kashmir: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/documents/actsandordinances/instrument_accession.htm

-The Cooch Behar merger agreement: http://coochbehar.nic.in/htmfiles/royal_history2.html

-The Tripura Merger Agreement: http://www.tripura.org.in/postindependant.htm JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The "Notes" section

I believe much of the text "tucked away" in the Notes section should actually be incorporated as normal text within the main body sections of the page. Roger (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, especially wrt notes 4-6, 10, 11 and 16. In fact most of this material used to be in the main text. IMO it should be restored there.

Until very recently I hadn't looked at this article for several years. Looking through the history I see that it was very substantially revised in 2009. IMO, in some respects, the revisions are not an improvement:

1) As Roger notes, several important events are now buried in the notes. The main text only contains generalisations about these events. Concrete facts make the point much more clearly. In the case of realms at war, the question of participation in WW2 actually caused the fall of the South African government, which had advocated a policy of neutrality.

2) Much relevant material which used to be present has been removed. Some cases that struck me:

• Old versions contained a brief discussion of the reasons many former British-controlled territories chose not to become Commonwealth realms, listing the relevant territories, which made it clear that such developments occurred on a case by case basis.

• Relevant developments within federated Commonwealth realms have been removed, e.g. the Queen of Queensland case, which sought to establish Queensland as having a monarchical status separate from that of Australia as a whole. This ultimately revived the whole question of the relationship of the Australian states to the Crown. The old text also used to note that the Cook Islands is functionally a separate monarchy under the New Zealand crown; the same is arguably (though less clearly IMO) true of Niue.

• The article used to contain a discussion of the evolution of public attitudes towards the crown. This has been replaced by a bald linked list of referenda.

This article need not discuss such issues in detail but it should at least note their existence and outline their development, with reference to more detailed discussions in the articles on the individual monarchies where appropriate. The relationship of the constituent parts of federated realms to the crown of that realm in particular is a complex subject, affecting at least three realms -- Australia, Canada and New Zealand -- and maybe soon to come to the UK.

3) There is far too much emphasis on Canada. Canada certainly has been, and is, a significant realm, and, since the principal author of the revisions is Canadian, a certain bias towards Canada is perhaps understandable. But was the royal visit to Canada of 1939, which gets a whole paragraph, really more important in demonstrating the separation of realms than the Western Australian secession referendum of 1933, which is not even mentioned, or the Irish policy of deliberate ambiguity, which is only alluded to in an article link given in a footnote to a table? Is it really appropriate to note the attitude (and in many cases the statements) of the then-current Canadian PM on each development?

4) The article is overloaded with quotations giving the opinions of various constitutional scholars, particularly Canadian ones. IMO most of these could be deleted without loss; they certainly don't belong in the body of the text. They contribute to giving the article a legalistic tone which is not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. Since the subject is constitutional, there is a fine line to walk between laying out the issues and history and making a judgement on it, but I think these quotes tend to push the reader towards the judgement side.

5) Many parts of the article need to be rewritten. Too many sentences and paragraphs are long, convoluted, and verbose, sometimes to the point of pomposity. E.g. "Another catalyst for change came in 1926, when then Governor General of Canada the Lord Byng of Vimy refused the advice of his prime minister (William Lyon Mackenzie King) in what came to be known colloquially as the King–Byng Affair." The Lord Byng of Vimy?? This is Wikipedia, not the Court Circular!

This sentence is far from being the worst example, but it could be expressed more simply and clearly. E.g.: "In 1926, the Governor General of Canada, Lord Byng, refused to dissolve parliament on the advice of the prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King (see King–Byng Affair)." Arguably, it does not even belong in this article, but in the article on the Balfour declaration itself, but if retained the article might then note why some of the other dominions also had an interest in the Balfour declaration.

I do not intend to become heavily involved in this article again -- I have other things to do -- but hopefully editors actively involved in it will take a second look at these points. I hope these comments will be taken as intended, as constructive criticism. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Japinderum (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)